How come that those who worry about biodiversity loss the most

>>2175747
The people most obsessed with religion are also often the least-interested in science and ecosystems etc. Hence why creationists and muslims never have jobs in these fields (or in anything involving complex thought really). That absence and ignorance then creates a feedback loop of giving even less of a shit about the natural world.

thx for posting bb

>>2175747
Because the Bible essentially subscribes to the view of "all other species are there for mankind's use"

>>2175762
And making species disappear is like tearing for fun the toys you were offered, and making your environment less pleasant to you by polluting it is like shitting in your bed without any easy way to clean it. Daddy may not like this.

Personally I never understood why environmentalism was a liberal talking point. You'd think conservatives would want to y'know, conserve the environment? Same with your point really.

>>2175763
If he didn't like it he'd do something about it. Yay, no responsibility!

>>2175766
True. Or he is a very progressive parent who do not want to interfere with our development, in fear of inhibiting our creativity. Some parents are that extreme. Or he thinks we are old enough to learn by ourselves to not pee in the bed but in the toilets.

>>2175747
Because we aren't facing tiny little changes, we are facing mass extinction style changes. Imagine if we didn't consider the environment at all. What if the methane deposits are released? What sort of damage would we see in the next 50 years? Sure, evolution can kick it higher if necessary, but that's just a blink of an eye to evolution. Also, do we really want nature to adapt to being able to deal with us? Right now we got it pretty easy. Nature has no idea how to deal with us, we own it.

>>2175764
>why environmentalism was a liberal talking point.
it isn't.

liberals don't want to conserve the environment, they want to conserve feral cats and other meme animals like pandas.

>>2175771
you should try talking to people outside of 4chan and facebook.

>>2175780
I have a more active social life than most people on /an/ seeing as I own a business.

>>2175771
They also want to demolish as much remaining natural landscape as possible to build estates packed with ugly houses, which allows them to import even more shitskins in and repeat the process until there's nothing left. Then all the pro-mass-migration hippies come out of their caves and have the gall to complain about the wholesale destruction of our countryside. This whole vile principle seems to be the sole foundation of the UK Green Party.

>>2175747
they believe god will fix any mistake humans make.

they also think doubting his ability to do that is blasphemy, so to complain about extinction or global warming or oil spills is to insult god.

>It has also been shown that evolution and speciation goes much faster as thought.
passive voice, false statement.

>>2175747
>dear, god, gibe pone plz
>wtf no pone? >:[
>am atheist nao cuz am smart
>no pone meens no god
Every time.

>>2175789
>passive voice, false statement.
Explain. How is it false? I base it on this:

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo15112984.html

>>2175747
>How come that those who worry about biodiversity loss the most are evolutionists instead of Christians?

Where are you getting this from?

Nearly every single ecologically protected area in north America and Europe was created by Christian governments as a reflection of the will of their Christian citizens. Protecting gods creatures and great wilderness has been seen as a moral good by Christians for centuries. Evolutionists may talk more about it but Christians have done far more about it.

>>2175791
>dear, god, gibe pone plz
>wtf no pone
>it 00k i bettr prey mo0r god is luv god is lyf
>ah34h4hha flthy artheist u r0t in hel
Every time.

>>2175770
I know shits bad right now. But I am asking why it ain't Christians that are worried more. At least with evolution and ecology it shows that the environment has survived numerous changes.

Now consider the Bible. Every species has been made by God to have purpose and is specifically made for environments that are static. I would be more worried if I believed that.

>>2175802
speciation has never been directly observed in plants or animals, so its speed hasn't been shown to be anything.

>>2175803
there has never been a Christian government in the US. We preserve a shitload of our land.

>>2175806
I mean we would have to build another dang ark to survive mass extinction in the Biblical sense. Or with the other Abrahamic religions.
>>2175803
It seems most environmentalists are not Christians, though some of them are 'spirtual'.

Meanwhile, some Christians seem to be the most against fighting climate change and so forth.

>>2175808
Yes it has. The book mentions various. Here's something else:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404

>>2175808
I live in a judeo christian country and we lost 85% of our biodiversity so far due to the government.

>>2175812
>Yes it has.
no, it hasn't.

and when people cite false examples it gives creationists ammo, like Darwin's finches.

wait a couple years, these "new species" will be found mating with the old ones again. Happens every time.

File: haha.jpg (53KB, 600x763px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x763px

>>2175817
>"new species" will be found mating with the old ones again.

is that what we're doing?

>>2175817
I shall call a spade a spade: you are a fucking imbecile. You do not seem to be well-read on evolution at all. One example of speciation was a fly that used to feed on hawthorn, now it feeds on apples.

These populations are now isolated, so will not breed again.

Also there is breeding within seperate species anyway. This is called the hybrid zone.

Hybridogenesis is also a valid way for speciation to happen. This is what happens with plants mostly.

Don't bullshit me troll.

>>2175821
*They are isolated through behavioural changes by the way.

File: Quint.jpg (30KB, 736x385px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 736x385px

>>2175808
>there has never been a Christian government in the US

>>2175805
>ill sho u gawd
>am not of beliefing you now til you gibe pone
Atheists are the spiritual equivalent to children holding their breathe till they get their pones.
Top kek

>>2175915
>ill sho u how defoted i am god
>wil w8 petiently far ur commends
>h4h4h4h4h4h4 altheist u brun in hel
Christians are the spiritual equivalent to children holding their breathe till they get their inner peace.
Top kek

>>2175916
>i am gud persun
>i dunt need a sky daddi tell me whut du
>*obeys the laws that were steeped in religious morality*
>but i do dis cuz i want not ciz of sky daddi >:[[[
Hahahaha what a fuckin cuck you are.

>>2175920
>am gud persun
>hahah filthy peasant atleihist ddot ahve de morals
>am morltalty superiuoeror spiriulal leedur
>h4h4h4h4h4h4 altheist u brun in hel
Hahahaha what a fuckin cuck you are.

>>2175923
You've had no retort for the past two posts now besides spilling the spaghetti in your pockets.
You come off as child that's been mentally out-maneuvered so you just repeat what's said in a snarky tone as if it's a rebuttal.
Was being this autistic while using a trip part of your plan?

>>2175925
you're doing an awful lot of projecting there cuck.

refer to me as 'daddy' and I'll consider writing a retort ;^)

>>2175821
>These populations are now isolated, so will not breed again.
I'm telling you this is a false assumption.

it has been found false every time it's been stated in the past and it will continue to be found false in the future.

You're describing saltation, a view of evolution that has been almost entirely discredited for over a century. And you're pretending you know more than people that actually study the subject.

yes, you'll find a handful of scientists that still adhere to it, just like you'll find scientists that don't think birds are dinosaurs or that don't believe humans contribute to global warming.

but they're not correct and most of science ignores them.

>>2175747
>new species will evolve

but it will be from a smaller gene pool, so limited. additionally, the earth has seen a few mass extinctions, and the biodiversity has never come close to what it was before.

>>2175931
>biodiversity has never come close to what it was before.
life is currently thousands of times more diverse than it has ever been in the past. Some of this is an artifact of preservation, but studies of megafaunal and microfaunal diversity indicate it's also just a fact.

Most Christians are fake as fuck, sorry to burst your bubble. If you can find one who's even read the whole book (yeah it's a challenge to be honest), the real ones end up despairing for the current state of their community (reasons why they're all shilling for the End Times).

The End Times is a few decades of suffering before God makes everything 'right' again. It's the easy way out because the alternative is admitting we fucked the pooch and there ain't no god coming to save our asses from our own damnation.

>insect and plant evolution and speciation can go very fast.

Fast on the scale of hundreds of thousands instead of millions of years, yes. And the Wall Street Journal publicizing (and misinterpreting) a scientific journal in an editorial does not a convincing statement make.

Media reports on scientific discoveries are always dogshit because Sci Hub only came out a few months ago and journalists are slow as fuck to adapt.

http://www.pnas.org.sci-hub.cc/content/112/44/E5980.full

The actual paper. Note that no new species were actually discovered (classic media overdramatizing as always, trying to make men in white coats seem like PhD totting Supermen), it is analyzing the impact of a fruit fly's adaptation to the ecosystem around it and how one adaptive change can contribute in multiple ways to the biodiversity we see around us today.

It is NOT evidence for the 'speed of evolution', but rather a piece of the puzzle in how complex ecosystems developed on Earth in the first place.

>>2175783
>owning a business
>having a social life
When are you filing for bankruptcy, anon?

>>2175963
my company is older than your grandparents, not any time soon.

>>2175963
business owners consider colleagues, clients, competitors and customers to be our friends.

only difference is we get paid to socialize and usually pay for others to socialize with us.

File: 4r.jpg (38KB, 479x374px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 479x374px

>>2175968
pretty much, I don't have any 'real' friends.

I haven't spend a single hour that wasn't paid talking to anyone in the past 4 years.

File: clarkson.jpg (39KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 460x276px

>>2175925
>Somehow getting beaten in an argument by BUG GUY of all people
wew lad

File: 2382947753_318ed84767_b.jpg (342KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1024x681px

>>2175973
every regular on this board has been beaten at least once by me.

>>2175929
>And you're pretending you know more than people that actually study the subject.
Not at all, I base this on what the scientist John N. Thompson says. Direct your criticism at him, I just repeat what this man says.

That and news, but I acknowledge to not always read papers so that could lead to misunderstanding.
>>2175957
It seems you are right that speciation did not happen as of yet. The paper only talks of divergence.

So how about you two point to some sources (papers, books) that state evolution only goes slow?

And hybridogenesis hasn't been debunked so far.

>>2175999
>So how about you two point to some sources (papers, books) that state evolution only goes slow?

it's easier to point to the over 5,000,000 species we didn't observe evolving compared to the 0 that we have observed.

>>2175999
>And hybridogenesis hasn't been debunked so far
speciation takes one species and makes it two.

hybridization takes two species and makes them one.

it's the opposite of speciation. The reverse.

>>2176012
>hybridization takes two species and makes them one.
going to have to stop you there, not all hybrids are a perfect 50%, two species can produce multiple, it's happened a fuck ton of times with Dactylorhizas because they're the whore of all orchids.

>>2176012
Hybridisation between species can often create stable populations of a 'new' additional species, happens all the time with plants.

>>2176012
Either you are trolling, naive or just plain stupid. A hybrid might persist in an environment in which it is fitter as both the parent species, but outside of that environment not fit.
There's more to it, but I don't want to waste any more time with you.

Also see >>2176014 and >>2176021

>>2176028
>A hybrid might persist in an environment in which it is fitter as both the parent species, but outside of that environment not fit.
horticulture is a thing for a reason.

nothing grown in captivity is where it's supposed to be.

you should both take a chill pill, this is getting too stupid even for /an/ standards.

>>2176029
You might be right. But I'll leave this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helianthus_anomalus

>>2175935
this is just blatantly false.

>>2176044
the longer life exists the more diverse it gets.

it's not false, it's just logic, too bad God ran out of that before he created /an/

>>2176052
That would be true, if we hadn't experienced massive extinctions that killed more species than currently are identified.

>>2176065
'massive extinctions'

that's only true for larger animals.

>protip: most animals aren't big.

>>2176065
>massive extinctions that killed more species than currently are identified
altogether that's true.

no single extinction ever killed more species than exist now.

because never before have this many species existed at one time.

>>2176071
the only ones that suffer from extinctions are larger animals for the most part.

it's doubtful any of the smaller organisms are even bothered by it.

>>2176074
Ironically enough the forams like you posted in the /aq/ thread are the best examples of extinctions wiping out huge numbers of micro-organisms.

it happened over and over and over. Even more often than megafaunal extinctions.

>>2176080
>huge numbers of micro-organisms
it would be huge if you were talking about average sized land animals, not when you're talking about micro-organisms.

you could probably whipe out a billion and it wouldn't affect them much, we're never going to know how many there actually are just because there's so many of them.


it's doubtful their numbers have declinded that much in % since the beginning of life itself.

>>2176083
well it kinda assumes the sample is representative.

Like say we have an estimated 10,000 species of foram, and only 27 of those made it into the fossil record. Then one day all 27 known paleospecies go extinct.

is it reasonable to conclude that the remaining 9,973 also went extinct at the same time?

if the fossil record is a random sample of existing species then it would be.

>>2176084
>it's doubtful their numbers have declinded that much in % since the beginning of life itself.
speciation happens way more often than extinction.

their numbers have grown over time, just like every other type of organism.

>>2176086
there's barely any fossil record when it comes to micro-organisms.

there's no point going off that.

most of them are extremely hardy, there's no reason to assume a mass extinction would even get their numbers down a whole lot.

>>2176088
their numbers probably keep growing because they don't die in the first place.

'mass extinction' is just a meme for larger animals.

it's time we become ylrzz

>>2176089
>there's barely any fossil record when it comes to micro-organisms.
what is chalk made of?
what is limestone?
what is palynology?
There's probably thousands of times more paleospecies of microorganism than macro.

mass extinction events in plankton are better recorded in sediments than any other type of extinction, they just aren't as sexy to talk about.

>>2176091
again, even if a billion species die, it'll probably not affect them at all, there's just that many of them.

have you read 'The swarm' by F. schatzing yet? if you haven't you should, you'll understand my ylrzz comment.

>>2176092
haven't read it but it looks good.

>>2176100
it has 800 pages and comes with a stock magnifying glass here, that's how much text it has.

should keep you occupied for a while, also try anything written by Thomas thiemeyer while you're at it, his shit is gold too.

>>2175976
>>2175973
>i wepeeted wht u seid >:[[[
>hahaha i am argooment winner now
>am smawrrrt
>am NOT wittle mental babi >:((
>am smawt argooment winner
Atheists: Grown Bodies, Childlike Mentality.

Thanks for proving my point :^]

>>2176074
>what are bees

>>2176120
bees have been stable for a while now m8.

stop that meme, it's stale.

>>2175927
>projecting
There's that word you don't quite know how to use.
>n-no u-ur a c-cuck
Haha, oh man.
>i have no reasonable response so lol itrollu. I don't need to now
Good to know that you're aware when you've been bested :^]

>>2176120
>what are bees
neither extinct or even endangered.

I love that leftist meme though.
It firs appears in science in 1947 and in the public awareness in the 1960's with the book, "Silent Spring."

the author tells us that bees will be extinct in a couple short decades because of their disastrous decline due to neonicotinoid pesticides.

of course since those dire predictions were first made bees haven't gone extinct, in fact their populations have grown because they're a domestic animal and we can pretty much breed as many as we want.

reality doesn't agree with environmentalists so they deny it.

>>2175771
I agree with cats, but pandas are actually not difficult to save in theory. It's just that the people preserving them are doing it the wrong way. The hard part is getting China to actually conserve bamboo forests and letting some of it grow back. We suck at taking care of pandas in captivity; they don't live long, it's hard for us to stimulate their environment, we can't get them to naturally breed and when they do have babies, they are generally too stressed to properly take care of them. The main goal, to introduce pandas back in the wild, has been proven widely ineffective. Pandas don't have a problem fucking in the wild; their breeding season is very similar to brown bears (whom are not endangered) and they will fuck up to a dozen times a day in a breeding season. The survival rate of babies isn't too bad for a bear. However, the issue is the forest is so fragmented that the bears can't get to each other to fuck. That's where the main problem lies

Then there's the whole issue where pandas in zoos generate a fuck ton of money, from donations and visitors to grants and renting out. So it's more profitable to keep useless panda breeding programs, then it is to plant some more bamboo, even though the latter is much more useful for the species.

>>2176126
you're done, just stop already before it gets embarrassing..

File: butterfly-rainbow.jpg (141KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x500px

>>2176074
What about butterflies?

Most transgenics target lepidopterans specifically, and they get more effective year after year, in some places the transgenic crops could extinct moths and butterflies completely.

Congrats

This is literally the stupidest thread on 4chan

>>2176089
>there's barely any fossil record when it comes to micro-organisms.

LOL wrong, microfossils and fossils of prehistoric archaea/bacterium are huge in modern paleontology.

Like, a five second Google search could have saved you this entire thread's worth of embarrassment.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Micropaleontology